Stats

Friends

Links to Me

Recent Comments

Hello jakeredwing - You sound frustrated and angry, but I wonder if combating rhetoric and name-calling with more rhetoric and name-calling is helpful? You sound resigned to the fact that nothing will change. Hard as it is sometimes,there is more power in being positive than in negativity and hate! Actually, there are lots of people looking for some answers to problems in our country, and only a few of them are so on the fringe that they are entrenched to the point of fascism. If you try to dialogue, you will see that many of the Tea Party affiliates are not scary or stupid. Once you get past the rhetoric, you can understand their concerns better and see what is drawing them to that hateful, diatribe speech that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, et al like to use for shock, sensationalism, ratings, and to confuse people - but they are playing to a crowd that has some real concerns. You might not agree with the concerns, but responding by bashing the people only sets up more walls which divide our country. I think that's EXACTLY what Malkin, Beck, Chaney, Palin, Limbaugh, et al want! And I believe they are motivated by self-interest and corporate interests, and in Palin & Cheney's case, a desire for power. Let's keep the dialogue between citizens open. Let the Tea Party members see that citizens who don't agree with them on all points are NOT the servants of an antichrist or something! We're just fellow citizens who also want a good world for living and working. If we share ideas, maybe we can make a system that actually works for THE PEOPLE!

Dear retired7,
Thank you for your answer. It's very helpful and certainly more concise than my comments. I guess these internet exchanges usually tend to be short, so I apologize for my verbosity to anyone bothered by it. (I don't have lots of time for internet blogs or whatever, but am interested in the developments w/this Teaparty movement). I don't mind reading long comments if I can gain some insight, and it certainly is shorter than reading a book. It's also nice to be able to discuss these issues with fellow citizens without resorting to put downs.
When you have time, could you clarify for me your view on violence as a mean to attain the change the Teaparty envisions? If anyone can reference some specific events where anti-war protesters used violence against elected officials during the Bush adminstration, I would appreciate it. I would also like a better understanding of what self determination and actualization mean, and how they have been decreased by our government over time. Does the American Civil Liberties Union address these concerns in your opinion? Thanks - patrioticgreen

Dear retired7, It sounds like you take pride in yourself for your work ethic. That seems like a good thing to me. Have you always felt that we live in a "government run welfare state," or did you form that view because of the health care legislation that just passed? I think this article was addressing the concern that people who are upset with the government might act violently to express their anger at the government. What do you think? Are you angry? Are you a member of the Teaparty movement? How do you think the Teaparty will help change the problems that bother you? I would truly appreciate learning more about your point of view. Thanks! patrioticgreen

Dear TeddyO, You are correct. It is spelled cited. I don't know why a spelling error would make you "cry out loud," or why you pointed out my particular error when the comments on this page contain many errors. Did you want to make sure the other readers and I knew that I am not perfect? Well, I am not perfect, and when I posted my comment, my goal was to communicate my thoughts about this article and issue, not enter a spelling contest. I know my comments were lengthy. I don't think short messages always convey the complexity of issues. I wanted to express the ideas the article and comments had brought to my mind. I tried to do so without labeling and name calling. I'm sorry I "lost you" when I "played the race card." I stated that was my "belief," not that I considered it a fact. I think it is important that members of the Teaparty movement know how they are perceived by nonmembers like me. If the Teaparty is not motivated by concerns about race to some extent, then the party and members need to convey that to the public somehow. I am open to hearing why my statement bothered you so much. If the race factor is NOT an issue with you, great! The two gentlemen I spoke with yesterday were advertising the rally on a public road, and they claimed that "lots of black people" would be at the rally. I wondered about the veracity of that, as I haven't seen "lots of black people" in photos of the rallies, and the county they were in has a high percentage of whites, so where would all these African American Teaparty members be coming from? As for attending the Teaparty rallies yesterday, I did not, but only because of my schedule. I would have loved to be there to see what it was about. I do intend to go to some Teaparty gatherings and talk to people. I am all for CALM discussions and exchanges of ideas. If you haven't attended any Democratic or Republican or third party rallies, you might try those too. I have been to Libertarian gatherings, and I don't agree with much of the philosophy, but I am somewhat informed about it. From what I know about the Teaparty movement, mainly from reading on internet sites (did I spell that one correctly?), it seems like it would appeal to people who share Libertarian values. (Perhaps someone can explain the differences to me.) I have also been to Democratic and Green party gatherings, and the causes and platforms there resonate more with me. I haven't tried a Republican gathering, but where I live and work a majority of people are members of the Republican Party, and we talk about our views together, and I get to listen to them discuss the issues amongst themselves. Thanks!
PS - If I knew more about my computer, I would run spell check for you, but since I don't, I hope you will tolerate mistakes. Sincerely, partioticgreen

Hey Mango Mark - You said As long as one person is held above the law there is no equality, and you sited illegal aliens, tax frauds in Congress, presidential suspension of enforcement of immigration laws etc... Adding demand EQUAL RIGHTS, ENFORCE OUR LAWS!

I don't get how equal rights equate with adherence to the law. We all have the equal right to break the law and be punished. Are you upset that not everyone gets caught, tried, and punished if guilty? So does that mean Bush and Cheney should be tired and impeached for lying and starting a war based on those lies, or for breaking the international law which the United States helped write and signed, which protects people from being held in captivity without due process, and from being tortured? And do you, like some Tea Party members I talked to today, want "less government intervention" or "more law enforcement?" Because law enforcement is paid for through our taxes, and is part of our government system. I ask because I want to understand your stance. Are you advocating for 100% criminal processing for crimes? I think the court system is already overloaded, so that would require quite a bit more funding. What is bothering you, that some people break laws and get away with it, or just that people break the laws related to issues you mentioned? For instance, if someone lying and slandering someone on Television, should they be prosecuted? Or if someone is an illegal alien in the United States, would it be okay to beat them up because they are here illegally, or would beating them up also constitute breaking the law? Would it be illegal to throw rocks at people's windows or make death threats to them because they didn't vote the way you wanted, or would that be okay? What if they didn't get caught and prosecuted? Would that be evidence that we have no equal rights in the United States? Just wondering. Thanks!

Uh, I beg to differ with the reader who thought the report was "biased, and silly." Did you even read it? One problem w/communication, especially on the internet like this, is that it is so easy to be dismissive and belittling. People say things to each other that many would not say in a room full of people, unless they were sure that everyone generally accepted their views. Which, by the way, is one of the many good points made in the article. I didn't find the article the least bit "silly." I would characterize it as concerning, but informative. As for "a few fringes in every belief," yes, that's why Al Quaida has been a concern, isn't it? It is when the fringe element start to think that enough people agree with violent means to an end that they start to act on their beliefs. The Weather Underground were extremists who used violence, which I think is wrong regardless of the type of protest. And they certainly were condemned by the press and the general public. I don't recall talk show hosts or columnists or radio personalities in mainstream media applauding their actions, or even staying silent in the face of their actions. Can you site some examples of that? And the Weather Underground were, sort of, protesting a nasty, pointless war. The Tea Party members, as far as I can discern, are upset because they fear change, and they don't want to help pay for someone else's health care or welfare, and they don't want to pay a big percent of their income as taxes, and there might be a little distress that "colored" people have broken the ultimate barrier. So how does that justify making hate speeches, throwing rocks, making death threats, and practicing militia drills? If that is not part of the Tea Party approach, then the Tea party spokespeople need to get busy and get that message out there right now!
Personally, I think that is exactly the response people like Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin and sarah Palin want, which is why they don't discourage it. If they can incite violence, and claim innocence, which just gives our country another problem to deal with instead of helping anything. The public will become more fearful and willing to assume that something is wrong with our current batch of leaders, allowing the conservatives to move back into power. And will things really be that different once they are in power? Will your taxes go down, will government stop "supporting those who don't work to make a living", or get government spending at an affordable level. Remember, President Obama inherited this bad economy. The dominos for the financial crash were set up during the Bush administration. If you don't like the way Obama and Congress are leading to take care of the problem, maybe you need to put more effort into lending a hand to your country to improve things - you know - becaome part of the solution, not part of the problem - turn on a few "thousand points of light."